Married Persons Facing Threats For Entering Live-In Relationship Outside Wedlock Should Be Given Protection: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that married persons entering into live-in relationship outside of their wedlock should be given protection, if they are facing threats by "any moral vigilant."

Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma referring to Joseph Shine versus Union of India, where the Apex Court decriminalised adultery, said every person has "autonomy of body" and if any assault is permitted on the live-in couple, it will be a casualty.

"Irrespective of socio-moral effect of such live-in relationships rather the preemptions of apposite assaults of any nature, befalling the live-in couple concerned, is the cornerstone of the structure laid by the Apex Court, wherebys, self autonomy in its various dynamic forms has been endowed upon the live-in couple, even if one of them is married, and, even if therebys thus decriminalized adultery does erupt. Therefore, therebys the protection to the above genre of relationship is to be granted," the division bench opined.

The Court also held that if any of the partners in a live-in relationship has minor children, then they should not abandon his/her duty to provide optimum care and protection to the minor children.

It explained that although there are remedies under the law to seek maintenance for the minor children but that may not be sufficient because the best care can only be taken by fatherly or motherly love, hence Courts, while granting protection to such married person, should put conditions like offering personal care to the minor child.

These observations were made while hearing a reference made by a single judge after noticing contradictory judgments of Single Benches on the issue.

The single judge had framed the following questions:

1. Where two persons living together seek protection of their life and liberty by filing an appropriate petition, whether the Court is required to grant them protection, per se, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case?

2. If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?.

The division bench referred to catena of judgements to underscore that Supreme Court has held that right to choice is a part of Right to Life under the Article 21 of the Constitution.

The division bench also laid down the following mechanism, to avoid burdening of the police authorities giving protection to couples:

(a) The couples apprehending threat should approach the jurisdictional District Legal Services Authority concerned, so that the the para legal volunteers or of counsellors can be appointed for the counselling of both the live-in couple as well as the persons from whom threat is apprehended.

(b) The State Human Rights Commission can also be approached by the live-in couples apprehending threats, "so that therebys there can be easing of the threats, as stem from the moral vigilants or from the relatives of the live-in couples of the above nature."

Title: Yash Pal and another v. State of Haryana and others

Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).

Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms. Neha Sharma, CGC for UOI.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for Mr. J.S.Toor, APP for U.T., Chandigarh.

Click here to read/download the order